Puddick v Dyamond Developments Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 431
The Court accepted Justin's and John's evidence and found that each paid $100,000 into Dyamond's account under express oral agreements with George that the money would be used only to obtain interests in the proposed Gravity Consulting pre-IPO. The plaintiffs did not authorise discretionary securities trading. Once the pre-IPO failed, Dyamond held the monies on a Quistclose trust for the plaintiffs and, having applied the monies for unauthorised purposes, was liable to pay equitable compensation. George was also directly liable because the plaintiffs reposed their trust in him personally and he used Dyamond as the receptacle for the funds; alternatively he had actual knowledge of...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 April 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Quistclose Trust, Breach of Trust, Accessorial Liability and Tracing / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Liability; Further Orders and Tracing Issues Reserved
- Outcome
- Liability determined substantially in favour of the plaintiffs against Dyamond and George; tracing and final form of orders reserved; plaintiffs entitled to costs to date from the defendants subject to submissions as to basis.
- Legal Topics
- ['resulting Trusts' 'quistclose Trusts' 'breach of Trust' 'misappropriation of Trust Property' 'knowing Assistance' 'equitable Compensation' 'tracing' 'freezing Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Alleged Quistclose Trust, Breach of Trust, Accessorial Liability and Tracing / Principal Judgment After Hearing on Liability; Further Orders and Tracing Issues Reserved
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs paid their $100,000 amounts solely for investment in the proposed Gravity Consulting pre-IPO or also authorised trading in securities pending that investment.' "Whether Dyamond held the plaintiffs' monies on trust and was liable to repay or compensate the plaintiffs when the pre-IPO failed." "Whether George was personally liable as the person in whom the plaintiffs reposed trust or alternatively for knowing assistance in Dyamond's breach of trust." 'Whether Gaks was liable to account or repay the plaintiffs by reason of receiving PMY shares transferred from Dyamond for nil consideration.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court accepted Justin's and John's evidence and found that each paid $100,000 into Dyamond's account under express oral agreements with George that the money would be used only to obtain interests in the proposed Gravity Consulting pre-IPO. The plaintiffs did not authorise discretionary securities trading. Once the pre-IPO failed, Dyamond held the monies on a Quistclose trust for the plaintiffs and, having applied the monies for unauthorised purposes, was liable to pay equitable compensation. George was also directly liable because the plaintiffs reposed their trust in him personally and he used Dyamond as the receptacle for the funds; alternatively he had actual knowledge of...
Court Disposition
Liability determined substantially in favour of the plaintiffs against Dyamond and George; tracing and final form of orders reserved; plaintiffs entitled to costs to date from the defendants subject to submissions as to basis.
Orders
- ['The Court will hear the parties on the terms of any appropriate orders to give effect to the reasons for judgment and to make provision for the further conduct of the proceedings.' "Subject to [112], order that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings." 'The parties were invited to bring in...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment